Execution Proceedings Must Be Completed Within 6 Months; Presiding Officer To Be Answerable Otherwise: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeals against the Madras High Court's common Judgment, by which it rejected the Revision Petitions and affirmed the ASJ's Orders.
The Supreme Court has directed all the High Courts to call for the necessary information from the District Courts regarding the pendency of the Execution Petitions.
The Court further directed that once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an Administrative Order or Circular, directing their respective District Judiciary to ensure that the Execution Petitions pending in various Courts shall be decided and disposed of within 6 months without fail otherwise the concerned Presiding Officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals filed against the common Judgment of the Madras High Court, by which it rejected the Revision Petitions and affirmed the Orders of the Additional Subordinate Judge (ASJ), allowing the Application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and rejecting the one seeking amendment in the Execution Petition.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed, “The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, has been reiterated by this Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022.”
“… we direct all the High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions”, it added.
Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar and AOR Rahul Jain represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
One Ayyavoo Udayar i.e., the father of the Appellants entered into an agreement to sell a property with the Respondents in the year 1980. He paid earnest money and was to pay the balance amount by November 15, 1980. The vendors failed to execute the Sale Deed, and hence, he filed a Suit for specific performance in 1983. The Trial Court decreed the Suit in his favour in 1986. The vendors went to the High Court and it partly allowed their Appeal in 2004, directing the Appellants to deposit an additional amount. The Appellants deposited the amount and the Sale Deed was executed in their favour in 2007.
The sons of the vendors' sister were in possession of the property and claimed ownership. They filed an Application under Section 47 of the CPC, alleging that they were not served notice of the execution proceedings. The ASJ allowed their Application, and the High Court upheld the Order. Thereafter, the Appellants filed two Revision Petitions before the High Court, challenging the ASJ's Orders. The High Court dismissed both the Revision Petitions and held that there was no material irregularity in the ASJ's Orders. Challenging this, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, said, “A harmonious reading of Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 101 implies that questions relating to right, title or interest in a decretal property must be related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The import of such a reading of the provisions is that only matters arising subsequent to the passing of the decree can be determined by an executing court under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 101.”
The Court was of the view that there is no question of deciding the validity of the Decree on the ground of being a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to evict cultivating tenants in this case.
“… the High Court committed an egregious error in passing the impugned order. We must now ensure that the appellants are able to reap the fruits of the decree. We are also of the view that the rejection by the High Court of the amendments to the execution petition filed by the appellants, was erroneous and deserves to be set aside”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, directed that once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of the Supreme Court with individual reports.
“The Executing Court shall now proceed to ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over to the appellants in their capacity as decree holders and if necessary, with the aid of police. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today without fail”, it also ordered.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 329)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan and AOR Mrinal Kanwar.
Respondents: Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar, AORs Rahul Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and Advocate Raji Gururaj.
